1987L51 (PLP)

This is a constitutional petition to challenge the order of learned Civil Judge Lahore date 18-5-1985 and the revisional order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore dated 7-10-1986 by which the said order dated 18-5-1985 was upheld. Facts in brief are that there was some litigation between Nazir Ahmad petitioner and Zia-ul-Haq etc., respondents. It is alleged firstly that Zia-ul-Haq etc., obtained a stay order on 18-9-1974 from the Court of Mr. Salamat Ali, Civil Judge, Lahore by stating wrong facts ; secondly, that on 24-9-1974 Zia-ul-Haq filed false affidavit in High Court to support his petition Criminal Miscellaneous No. 507-Q of 1974 and thirdly, that on 25-5-1976 Anjum Zia respondent No. 2 filed false reply in proceeding, before an Arbitrator. In view of these three instances Nazir Ahmad petitioner filed an application before Mr. Tahir Parvez, Civil Judge, Lahore under section 476/195, Cr. P. C. in the year 1980 with a request that Zia-ul-Haq and his sons Anjum Zia and Nadim Zia be sentenced under sections 193 and 195, P. P. C. This application was dismissed by learned Civil Judge on 18-5-198_5 firstly for the reason that the alleged false statements were made during the period 1974 to 1976 before various Courts/authorities whereas the application was filed after much delay on 2-11-1980 and secondly, that the application should have been filed before the Courts where the said false statements were made. Nazir Ahmad petitioner challenged the said order in revision which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7-10-1.986. Both these orders have been challenged in this constitutional petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused various documents which form part of this petition. Annexure `A' is the application dated 2-11-1980 by Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry under section 476/195, Cr. P. C. seeking initiation of proceedings under sections 193 and 195, P. P. C. against Zia-ul-Haq and his two sons. Annexure `B' is reply of Zia-ul-Haq and others to the application Annexure 'A'. Annexure `C' is the impugned order of Mr. Tahir Parvez, Civil Judge, Lahore dated 18-5-1985. Annexure `D' is the memorandum of revision filed in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lahore by Nazir Ahmad Chaudhry petitioner to challenge the order dated 18-5-1985 and Annexure `E' is the impugned order dated 7-10-1986. The petitioner did not place on file of this petition the statements of Zia-ul-Haq etc., allegedly made by them to secure stay 'order dated 18-9-1974. The affidavit dated 24-9-1974 filed by Zia-ul-Haq in Criminal Miscellaneous 507-Q of 1974 has also not been appended with this petition nor the alleged false reply dated 25-5-1976 filed by Anjum Zia respondent before Arbitrator forms part of this petition. It is, therefore, not possible to assess the merits of the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. Secondly the findings of learned Civil Judge as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge in the two impugned orders that the application under section 476, Cr P. C. should have been filed in the concerned Courts is unexc.-ptionable. Thirdly, the alleged false statements were made between the years 1974 to 1976, but the application under section 476, Cr. P. C. was made after much delay on 2-11-1980. , Fourthly, the said statements were made during the period 1974 to 1976 and the petitioner did not agitate the matter at that very time. He also did not ask the concerned Courts to initiate proceedings under sections 193,1 195, P. P. C. against the accused. The proceedings in the application under section 476, Cr. P. C. remained pending for about 5/6 years and the petitioner has now come up in constitutional petition seeking interference in the impugned orders. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge as well as the learned Civil Judge passed the impugned orders with jurisdiction. It was discretionary with the Courts below to take or not to take cognizance of offence under sections 193 and 195, P. P. C. The provisions of section 476, Cr. P. C. are not mandatory. It is always discretion of Courts to take or not to take cognizance of offence committed by a person in or in relations to any proceedings. In my view this is a mala fide petition and no relief can be allowed in exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. s. A. D-9/L Petition dismissed.